Baron Corp. v. Piedmont Fire Insurance

166 Misc. 69, 1 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1139
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 16, 1937·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff had the burden of showing its alleged fire damage. The only evidence of the cause of the alleged fire, charring or burning of electric wiring, was that of an overload of electrical current.

The burning or charring of a wire carrying electric current occurring during or accompanying an overload of current must be regarded as an electrical injury, especially when, as here, there is an absence of evidence showing such burning or charring to be fire as distinguished, if that can be, from electrical injury.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Levy and Hammer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baron Corp. v. Piedmont Fire Insurance, 166 Misc. 69, 1 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

166 Misc. 69 (Baron Corp. v. Piedmont Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hartford Fire Insurance Corp. of New York v. Electrical District No. 4
452 P.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1969)
Jorgensen v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
373 P.2d 580 (Utah Supreme Court, 1962)
Sachs v. American Central Insurance
33 Misc. 2d 816 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Sidehill Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance
17 Misc. 2d 647 (New York County Courts, 1959)
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Aetna Insurance
106 S.E.2d 276 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1958)